Middle-class art
Paul Crowley
news:1177650356.9...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Whereas the "systems" that Shakespeare, Holocaust, Global Warming and
> Evolution Denials all destroy serve genuine human ends: knowledge of
> how the rising middle class was the creative class of the Renaissance,
> prevention of Fascism, the Earth itself, and biology.
Nilges usually resides in my kill-file, but computer
problems have let me see again all the reasons
why. However, his incoherent splurges prompt
me to pose once again questions to which I never
get answers:
a) What great art was produced in the Renaissance
by the middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
b) What great art was ever produced by the
middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
The latter question has perhaps some answers
-- but the art is relatively minor, (e.g. Jane Austen,
Dickens); it is MUCH later, and it was never
addressed to the uncultured masses that are
(ludicrously) supposed to have formed Shake-
speare's audiences.
However, the violence of Nilges's class hatred
(even if hopelessly anachronistic) is a useful
reminder of one of the major reasons for the
cover-up lasting so long. Classes are (or
certainly were) necessary in all societies --
but their presence nearly always entails great
tensions and this was certainly the case in
England over all of the relevant period. Once
the Great Bard had been declared not to be an
aristocrat, it would always have been politically
difficult to state that, in fact, he was.
His class was a core reason for his existence as
an author -- and for the nature of the forms of
pseudonymity he adopted from the time he was
a child. If he was to write and publish with the
least degree of freedom, he was obliged to do
so under false names.
A sensible consideration of the texts has only
recently become feasible -- since the effective
extinction of the aristocracy as a class.
(Of course, that does not apply to those -- like
Nilges -- whose mentality is still emotionally
bound up in all those distant prejudices.)
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177650356.9...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Whereas the "systems" that Shakespeare, Holocaust, Global Warming and
> > Evolution Denials all destroy serve genuine human ends: knowledge of
> > how the rising middle class was the creative class of the Renaissance,
> > prevention of Fascism, the Earth itself, and biology.
>
> Nilges usually resides in my kill-file, but computer
> problems have let me see again all the reasons
> why.
Aah, Paul, you shouldn't worry that he might be funnier than you.
He's funny, but nowhere near as funny as you. You needn't kill-file
him.
> However, his incoherent splurges prompt
> me to pose once again questions to which I never
> get answers:
>
> a) What great art was produced in the Renaissance
> by the middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
All of it? A tricky question, actually, but surely them purty
churches and the windows and sculpture and paintings inside them were
for everyone, at least a little? And carved doors and sculptures on
the outside of churches. The music played in the churches was for all
the classes, it would seem to me. Did the troubadeurs not recite or
sing for anyone who'd listen? I've never read [i]Piers Plowman[/i]
but have heard tell it was for the lower orders more than anyone
else. Lots of medieval poems, including ones of the first-order, were
for people in general. Moast of the artists were middle-class. All
the drama of Shakespere's time was attended by all the classes.
Someone who knows the Renaissancce better than I could do better in
answering you, but I've done enough to convince anyone but you, Paul,
that your question is idiotic.
> b) What great art was ever produced by the
> middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
You might take a look at a city called Athens, Paul.
--Bob
book...@yahoo.com
I thought you argued that there was no Renaissance middle class?
As aristocrats, Lily, Spenser, and Sidney seem to be realistically
attempting to review classical standards for moderns, as good
Renaissance artists were doing. They weren't writing for each other,
but with an eye toward educating the public, ISTM.
As to the role of class in Renaissance literature, Matz has written
extensively on this, q.v. at
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/08-3/gieskrev.htm
The way I would prefer to pick up this cat would be looking at the
canon to see what characters are limned for what audience.
Gargantua and Don Quixote are not aristocrats, and mostly satirize
outdated aristocratic values; neither are their authors aristocrats,
Rabelais and Cervantes. QED Shakespeare has his Falstaff and various
lowlife characters drawn colorfully, and is not especially
aristocratic in sympathies, although royalty is limned with great
insight.
Surely it's significant that many of Shakespeare's best
characterizations are those of merchants, soldiers, low-level
bureaucrats, petty officials, etc.. I doubt if aristocrats would know
how to do that, even if they thought it was of artistic value.
If Shakespeare got around to writing novels, I bet it would be of the
middle class, domestic sort where the drama of life is. He would have
made a great writer of soap operas. Probably, as in his dramatic
productions, he would have in mind educating, as well as entertaining
the public. bookburn
Peter Groves
news:i18533lvf55fqd9an...@4ax.com...
Do you understand what "aristocrat" means? It's quite easy to tell: it
tends to involve one of the wors 'duke', 'earl', 'baron', 'marquis', 'baron'
and so on. Spenser's father was (probably) a cloth-maker. You really must
learn to get your information from books rather then from the first
half-baked website your browser happens to light upon.
--
Peter G.
"The nonsense started around 1785. That was the year a Warwickshire
clergyman fantasized that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was not
the author of the works everyone had until then supposed he had written. In
doing so, he laid the foundations of the so-called authorship question,
which has grown into an immense monument to human folly." (Stanley Wells)
spinoza1111
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177650356.9...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Whereas the "systems" that Shakespeare, Holocaust, Global Warming and
> > Evolution Denials all destroy serve genuine human ends: knowledge of
> > how the rising middle class was the creative class of the Renaissance,
> > prevention of Fascism, the Earth itself, and biology.
>
> Nilges usually resides in my kill-file, but computer
We had fed the heart on fantasies,
The heart's grown brutal from the fare,
More substance in our enmities
Than in our love; O honey-bees,
Come build in the empty house of the stare
You take a poster, that would be me, who is a statistical outlier in
that I've read the canon and the critical literature and base my
postings on that. You have no loves and your identity, what Yeats
above calls substance, is in your enmities...you actually think it's
hip to spread hatred and scorn, and in an era of corporate and
government surveillance, endanger my position in society (as if at
this point I give a fuck, but this endangerment is still wrong). I
conclude that you're a micro-Fascist and the face of Hitler in the
crowd, because politicians have learned (in such phenomena as "Swift
Boating" war veterans who stand as candidates for high office) that
it's easier to mobilize hatred and destructiveness than love or
admiration or respect.
You're trying to Swift Boat the real Shakespeare, about whom we know
quite a lot, because you're a loser who would never, not in a million
years, have been able to parlay a grammar school education, even one
of high quality, into a career. Most people today abandon their
education and seek instead a career in which they apply as little as
possible of what they have learned, preferring instead to latch, or
leech, on to some successful thug and gradually undercut him while
flattering him, thereby taking his position, and from that position
airing the sort of bone IGNORANCE which is a stock in trade of the
elite in most societies today, from Britney to Bush to Berlusconi.
The very idea that Shakespeare could learn things of practical value
in his grammar school is strange to you because you live in a world of
certification and self-satisfaction and the arrogance of wealth and
you come in here to disrespect me by my patronymic (thereby
endangering not only my reputation but that of other members of my
family who don't share my views) while airing complete ignorance, in
which you describe Austen and Dickens as "minor authors".
You claim to have me in a killfile, but your addicted to foulness and
to abuse and you needed your little fix.
> problems have let me see again all the reasons
> why. However, his incoherent splurges prompt
> me to pose once again questions to which I never
> get answers:
>
> a) What great art was produced in the Renaissance
> by the middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
Most of it.
Italian painting was created for the PUBLIC edification of the middle
and lower classes in public spaces, notably churches. The Sistine
Chapel wasn't painted for Pope Julius private edifaction. The painters
were almost all from the artisan, which is to say the skilled lower
classes, as were musicians such as Monteverdi.
You live in a world deprived of high culture and the public space from
Afghanistan (where the Taliban deliberately destroyed ancient statues
of Buddha) to the USA (where Christian fundamentalists are mobilized
regularly against all forms of public art except high tech jails, if
jails could be art) and you think exclusively in its terms.
Cervantes aimed his novel at the middle classes.
Writing a Petrarchian or Spenserian sonnet is NOT an easy task. Can
you produce one? I thought not. It demanded training in detail of the
sort which Shakespeare got in grammar school: just because you got
nothing from your education doesn't mean other people do not.
>
> b) What great art was ever produced by the
> middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
>
> The latter question has perhaps some answers
> -- but the art is relatively minor, (e.g. Jane Austen,
ROTFLMAO. Jane Austen and Dickens minor authors! HA HA HA!
> Dickens); it is MUCH later, and it was never
> addressed to the uncultured masses that are
> (ludicrously) supposed to have formed Shake-
> speare's audiences.
Who do you suppose the groundlings were? Just because people today are
physically, mentally and culturally debased by industrial civilization
and the deliberate use of war as an extension of policy doesn't mean
that people are not able to receive high culture.
>
> However, the violence of Nilges's class hatred
> (even if hopelessly anachronistic) is a useful
> reminder of one of the major reasons for the
> cover-up lasting so long. Classes are (or
> certainly were) necessary in all societies --
> but their presence nearly always entails great
> tensions and this was certainly the case in
> England over all of the relevant period. Once
> the Great Bard had been declared not to be an
> aristocrat, it would always have been politically
> difficult to state that, in fact, he was.
He is KNOWN not to have been an aristocrat.
As to my "class hatred", what I don't like is the ridiculous
distortions of personalities such as are evident in this ng produced
by social class.
I especially HATE the attempt to bring back the aristocrats by such
means in the USA as the elimination of taxation on inherited wealth,
because the new aristocrats are the same as the old: ignorant thugs
who steal and pay intellectuals to justify their theft.
book...@yahoo.com
It doesn't suit my purpose to consider "aristocrats" as members of
peerage or nobility, which seems to serve your purpose.
(quote)
Matz focuses on Guyon's story because "the virtue of temperance
accommodates a divided and transitional aristocratic culture by
accommodating Spenser's own transformation from poor scholar to
courtly gentleman" (91).
(unquote)
If necessary, consider my "As . . . as subjunctive, or true
conditionally. As it happens, the point you try to make, that Spenser
was not an aristocrat, argues against Paul's idea that only
aristocrats functioned as artists for the middle class. But that he
began as poor scholar and ended as courtly gentleman, a familiar of
Essex and Elizabeth, makes my point.
Your other point, that this quibble proves I need to get information
from books, instead of the Internet, raises questions about your lack
of information from either source, ISTM. bookburn
Peter Groves
news:k6n5331bpv96rcqoh...@4ax.com...
I can only repeat: do you understand what "aristocrat" means? Clearly you
don't.
Here's a hint meanings aren't things you make up for "your purposes", like
Humpty Dumpty: If you want to speak English you need to comply with its
conventions (that's just what 'speaking' or 'writing' a given language
means).
>
> (quote)
> Matz focuses on Guyon's story because "the virtue of temperance
> accommodates a divided and transitional aristocratic culture by
> accommodating Spenser's own transformation from poor scholar to
> courtly gentleman" (91).
> (unquote)
Of course Spenser counted as a gentleman; clearly you have little grasp of
Elizabethan social terminology.
>
> If necessary, consider my "As . . . as subjunctive, or true
> conditionally.
If necessary? If necessary for what? To save your face? Why should I give
a toss about that?
> As it happens, the point you try to make, that Spenser
> was not an aristocrat, argues against Paul's idea that only
> aristocrats functioned as artists for the middle class.
And that is a problem how, exactly? Does Crowley ever say anything that any
sensible person would want to endorse?
> But that he
> began as poor scholar and ended as courtly gentleman, a familiar of
> Essex and Elizabeth, makes my point.
No it doesn't (see above).
>
> Your other point, that this quibble proves I need to get information
> from books, instead of the Internet, raises questions about your lack
> of information from either source, ISTM. bookburn
Who knows what this is supoposed to mean? I'm afraid the peanlty you risk
for re-inventing the meanings of words to "suit your purposes" is that you
risk unintelligibility.
book...@yahoo.com
<Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
I suggest you look up "aristocrat" in a dictionary to see the
etymology deriving from Greek. It would help if you understand that,
in the context of differentiating middle class from aristocracy,
specifically as Matz uses the term, it has another meaning. Try the
OED, why don't you?
>>
>> (quote)
>> Matz focuses on Guyon's story because "the virtue of temperance
>> accommodates a divided and transitional aristocratic culture by
>> accommodating Spenser's own transformation from poor scholar to
>> courtly gentleman" (91).
>> (unquote)
>
>Of course Spenser counted as a gentleman; clearly you have little grasp of
>Elizabethan social terminology.
>>
>> If necessary, consider my "As . . . as subjunctive, or true
>> conditionally.
>
>If necessary? If necessary for what? To save your face? Why should I give
>a toss about that?
You need to understand, old bean, that I include Spenser with Lily and
Sidney as representing aristocrats who wrote for the middle class;
which I think is about right. I phrased it beginning "As aristocrats"
in order to make a rhetorical statement. Probably you have no opinion
about the statement, just want to find something to " give a toss"
about.
>> As it happens, the point you try to make, that Spenser
>> was not an aristocrat, argues against Paul's idea that only
>> aristocrats functioned as artists for the middle class.
>
>And that is a problem how, exactly? Does Crowley ever say anything that any
>sensible person would want to endorse?
Paul has his own style, featuring rhetorical flourishes that are
sometimes wild, but usually coherent and consistent with his angle of
vision, IMO. What he says seems to have the virtue of inspiring wit
in others.
>> But that he
>> began as poor scholar and ended as courtly gentleman, a familiar of
>> Essex and Elizabeth, makes my point.
>
>No it doesn't (see above).
>
>>
>> Your other point, that this quibble proves I need to get information
>> from books, instead of the Internet, raises questions about your lack
>> of information from either source, ISTM. bookburn
>
>Who knows what this is supoposed to mean? I'm afraid the peanlty you risk
>for re-inventing the meanings of words to "suit your purposes" is that you
>risk unintelligibility.
It means you are simply winging it without supporting your statements
adequately. Obviously, you have not looked at the Matz reference I
cite in wikipedia, which requires a different meaning for aristocrat
than you have.
It occurs to me that your angle of vision is about what Spenser, Lily,
and Sidney were interested in reforming. bookburn
Peter Groves
news:m916335qfve3ajm74...@4ax.com...
What exactly do you suppose the relevance of its etymology is? You do have
the most amusingly naive ideas about language.
> It would help if you understand that,
> in the context of differentiating middle class from aristocracy,
> specifically as Matz uses the term, it has another meaning. Try the
> OED, why don't you?
>
> >>
> >> (quote)
> >> Matz focuses on Guyon's story because "the virtue of temperance
> >> accommodates a divided and transitional aristocratic culture by
> >> accommodating Spenser's own transformation from poor scholar to
> >> courtly gentleman" (91).
> >> (unquote)
> >
> >Of course Spenser counted as a gentleman; clearly you have little grasp
of
> >Elizabethan social terminology.
>
> >>
> >> If necessary, consider my "As . . . as subjunctive, or true
> >> conditionally.
> >
> >If necessary? If necessary for what? To save your face? Why should I
give
> >a toss about that?
>
> You need to understand, old bean, that I include Spenser with Lily and
> Sidney as representing aristocrats who wrote for the middle class;
> which I think is about right. I phrased it beginning "As aristocrats"
> in order to make a rhetorical statement.
And what do you suppose that means? Presumably it is your Humpty-Dumpty
euphemism for "I got it wrong".
If what you originally meant is that Spenser was to some extent writing
ventriloquially from an aristocratic standpoint, that would be a reasonable
point: both romance and pastoral are fundamentally aristocratic genres. But
it's not what you said
Wikipedia? That's about your level.
Paul Crowley
news:1177712509.3...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> a) What great art was produced in the Renaissance
>> by the middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
>
> All of it?
Nope. None of it. Just follow the money.
> A tricky question, actually, but surely them purty
> churches and the windows and sculpture and paintings inside them were
> for everyone, at least a little? And carved doors and sculptures on
> the outside of churches.
They were all part of a competition between
the _ruling_classes_ of their respective
parts of country.
> The music played in the churches was for all
> the classes, it would seem to me.
Hopelessly wrong. Only the most wealthy
could afford the choirs (with all the training
necessary) and later the instruments,
particularly organs.
> Did the troubadeurs not recite or
> sing for anyone who'd listen?
They sang for those who would pay them.
If you had no money you could forget it.
> I've never read [i]Piers Plowman[/i]
> but have heard tell it was for the lower orders more than anyone
> else. Lots of medieval poems, including ones of the first-order, were
> for people in general.
Which were 'of the first order' ?
> Moast of the artists were middle-class.
The term is anachronistic (I borrowed
it from the idiot Nilges).
> All
> the drama of Shakespere's time was attended by all the classes.
This is pure Stratfordian fiction.
>> b) What great art was ever produced by the
>> middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
>
> You might take a look at a city called Athens, Paul.
You were there, and you know?
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
No, I wasn't there. I'm hopelessly deluded do to historians telling
me about plays written for festivals that were for the entire populace
of Athens. Paul, you obviously won't budge, and you're too rigidnikal
to accept the idea of multiple aims--which would cause a Michelangelo,
for instance, to paint for money, for his religion, and for PEOPLE.
And for the mere sake of making a satisfying art object. I believe
also that there is archeological evidence, and documents with pictures
of them from the time, that indicate theatres existed in Shakespeare's
London, and all kinds of documentary evidence that people went to
those theatres to watch plays, such as Shakespeare's Henry VIII.
Worse, you refuse to acknowledge that a statement cannot automatically
be accepted as true just because the person who made it says it is
true.
--Bob
spinoza1111
> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1177712509.3...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> a) What great art was produced in the Renaissance
> >> by the middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
>
> > All of it?
>
> Nope. None of it. Just follow the money.
>
> > A tricky question, actually, but surely them purty
> > churches and the windows and sculpture and paintings inside them were
> > for everyone, at least a little? And carved doors and sculptures on
> > the outside of churches.
>
> They were all part of a competition between
> the _ruling_classes_ of their respective
> parts of country.
>
> > The music played in the churches was for all
> > the classes, it would seem to me.
>
> Hopelessly wrong. Only the most wealthy
> could afford the choirs (with all the training
> necessary) and later the instruments,
> particularly organs.
Not only were the *canaille* ALLOWED in church, they were FORCED to go
to church.
>
> > Did the troubadeurs not recite or
> > sing for anyone who'd listen?
>
> They sang for those who would pay them.
> If you had no money you could forget it.
This shows an appalling lack of knowledge of the feudal system, in
which money had almost no part.
>
> > I've never read [i]Piers Plowman[/i]
> > but have heard tell it was for the lower orders more than anyone
> > else. Lots of medieval poems, including ones of the first-order, were
> > for people in general.
>
> Which were 'of the first order' ?
The Wanderer. The Canturbury Tales (with its care to let ALL CLASSES
speak).
>
> > Moast of the artists were middle-class.
>
> The term is anachronistic (I borrowed
> it from the idiot Nilges).
Let's see, because today you THINK you live in a classless society,
and this is demonstrated to you on TeeVee by the utter vacuity of the
ruling class, then the term can no longer be used even to refer to the
class structures of the past? This makes no sense whatsoever.
The "Idiot" Nilges
>
> > All
> > the drama of Shakespere's time was attended by all the classes.
>
> This is pure Stratfordian fiction.
>
> >> b) What great art was ever produced by the
> >> middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
>
> > You might take a look at a city called Athens, Paul.
>
> You were there, and you know?
In the dialectic of enlightenment, the slob on the street is always
ready to challenge any argument with this turn, claiming to be at one
and the same time knowledgeable and empirical. If the text to hand
seems to support him, he carries it around. But as soon as it
contradicts the fucking slob on the fucking street, he falls back on
empiricism.
No-one can "know" more than the slob.
I'll say it again. Hitler rode this epistemology into power in 1933
without once having a majority by mobilizing doubt, enabling and
denial that he was any "worse" than "those other politicians". George
Bush rode this epistemology into power by mobilizing a population
becoming, in 2000, daily more obese, aliterate, narcissistic and
innumerate, a population that greeted the threat to eliminate its
Social Security with cheap laughs when Bush called Gore's "lockbox"
plan "fuzzy logic", and that continued until the Congressional
elections of 2006 to believe that Saddam Husayn had WMDs when this
convenient LIE had been rejected by the original LIARS.
In this ng, people who are, in all probability, daily more obese,
aliterate, narcissistic and innumerate get all their information on
Fascism from Schindler's List and The Pianist, they mock a poster
(Innes) who'd read a serious critical book on Shakespeare (Ted Hughes'
Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being) because he read a book,
they mock a man (Michael) because his Swedenborgian theories express
mere hope, and the best of them (Kennedy and Groves) are pedants who
exalt the trivial and the incunabula, as if The Octoroon is more
worthy of revival than Lear.
This is no joke. Fascism and Fascist epistemology fills this ng like a
nerve gas.
>
> Paul.
lackpurity
> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
MM:
Shakespeare was sent for everyone, just as Christ. Many are called,
but few are chosen. He even said to take the Master, as he is, even
if he is dressed in rags. Saints are not interested in how much
wealth we have. They are interested in our souls. They want to wash
the dirt off souls. The Master doesn't have to be an aristocrat.
If the poor couldn't afford tickets, I'm sure that Shakespeare would
have made arrangements so that the poor could see him and get benefit
from him. Nostradamus prophesied that people would come by land and
by sea to see and hear the English Masters. Saints don't neglect the
sincere seekers, even if they are peasants.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
It's not just this NG. It's the whole world, actually. Satan is the
totalitarian leader, until we become stronger than he. We have very
little free will. For example, we didn't have a choice, when we would
be born, or to whom we would be born, or in what country we would be
born. Who made all those decisions? Answer: Satan. During our
life, we experience so many karmas, some good, some bad. So many
"accidents," happen. Who made those decisions? Satan. Christ said,
"Even the hairs on your head are numbered." Whitman wrote, "There is
a strict account of all."
We are living like rats in a maze, running around in very narrow
channels. We've lost 99.99% of the free will, which we once had.
Why? Because we have been sinning for ages, and our karmic debts are
mind-bogglingly huge. We can't pay them. That is why we are really
the slaves of Satan.
Is there any hope to escape the Fascist Regime of Satan? Yes, but we
must follow a Master. He will guide us out of the maze. He will
inspire us to meditate and reject the temptations of Satan. A rusty
knife will become pure, shiny again, after repeated applications on a
grindstone. Once we go beyond Satan, then we will be free of his
Fascism.
Michael Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
lackpurity
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:49:30 GMT, "Peter Groves"
>
>
>
>
>
> ><bookb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:k6n5331bpv96rcqoh...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:44:20 GMT, "Peter Groves"
>
> >> ><bookb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:i18533lvf55fqd9an...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:57:39 +0100, "Paul Crowley"
>
> >> >> >"spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
MM:
Spenser was a Great Master. He dedicated the Faerie Queen to Sir
Philip Sidney. That places Sidney on a very high pedestal. Sidney
might have been a spiritual influence on Christopher Marlowe. His
sister, Mary Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, was Marlowe's disciple.
Sir Philip Sidney believed in meditation. Here is the first verse of
Astrophel and Stella, which includes the reference to his MUSES:
Astrophel and Stella
I
Ouing in trueth, and fayne in verse my loue to show,
That she, deare Shee, might take som pleasure of my paine,
Pleasure might cause her reade, reading might make her know,
Knowledge might pittie winne, and pity grace obtaine,
I sought fit wordes to paint the blackest face of woe;
Studying inuentions fine, her wits to entertaine,
Oft turning others leaues, to see if thence would flow
Some fresh and fruitfull showers vpon my sun-burnd brain.
But words came halting forth, wanting Inuentions stay;
Inuention, Natures childe, fledde step-dame Studies blowes;
And others feet still seemde but strangers in my way.
Thus, great with childe to speak, and helplesse in my throwes,
Biting my trewand pen, beating myselfe for spite,
Fool, said my Muse to me, looke in thy heart, and write.
MM:
It's clear that Sir Philip Sidney had the requisite humility, which
made his MUSES successful. He knew that we're all helpless in the
throwes of destiny. Some of us are shackled in golden chains, some in
iron, rusty chains. He knew that Muses was the solution to regaining
our spiritual freedom.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
wrote:
> <bookb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:m916335qfve3ajm74...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:49:30 GMT, "Peter Groves"
>
> > ><bookb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:k6n5331bpv96rcqoh...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:44:20 GMT, "Peter Groves"
>
> > >> ><bookb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >> >news:i18533lvf55fqd9an...@4ax.com...
> > >> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:57:39 +0100, "Paul Crowley"
>
> > >> >> >"spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
MM:
It's not crystal clear, but I think Bookburn got it right.
> If what you originally meant is that Spenser was to some extent writing
> ventriloquially from an aristocratic standpoint, that would be a reasonable
> point: both romance and pastoral are fundamentally aristocratic genres. But
> it's not what you said
MM:
You're saying that Spenser wasn't an aristocrat? I don't know who
started this class-issue, but Spenser and Sidney didn't care about
aristocracy. Spenser and Sidney were like brothers. Spenser
dedicated The Faerie Queen to Sidney. Marlowe wasn't an aristocrat,
but he was close to them, also. So was William Shakespeare. Was it
Crowley who started this?
You're talking about a class of Great Mystics. Mystics see the love
in individuals. Personal wealth or influence is not important in
mystic circles. So, Crowley is out on a wild goose chase, I think.
Lily must have had the same attitude, as he was a member of the cult,
IMO.
Michael Martin
book...@yahoo.com
<Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
I've been saying all along that Renaissance Elizabethans like Lily,
Spencer, and Sidney, answer PC's criteria for middle class artists
creating great art for the middle class. So too did Shakespeare.
"Aristocratic" in Matz refers to those of an emerging class in a
divided culture in transition, which I assume is typical of
Renaissance. Matz says Spencer is an example; I'm suggesting
Shakespeare was, too.
Oxford, of course, doesn't make the cut because he does meet your
definition of "aristocrat." bb
Paul Crowley
news:k6n5331bpv96rcqoh...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:44:20 GMT, "Peter Groves"
> As it happens, the point you try to make, that Spenser
> was not an aristocrat, argues against Paul's idea that only
> aristocrats functioned as artists for the middle class.
I said no such thing. Aristocrats had the
money. (Can we agree on THAT?). They
paid for art, which was produced any way
it came, and the artists, and artisans were
often, indeed nearly always, non-aristocrats.
But patronage by RICH people was the
way in which nearly all art was produced
throughout the Renaissance, and for
hundreds of years after.
The one (imagined) great exception to
that rule was Shakespeare.
What a laugh!
Strats are not even aware of the nature
of the theory they propose. Nothing
new there, of course. Can any Strat
find his behind -- using both hands?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> > I've never read [i]Piers Plowman[/i]
>> > but have heard tell it was for the lower orders more than anyone
>> > else. Lots of medieval poems, including ones of the first-order, were
>> > for people in general.
>>
>> Which were 'of the first order' ?
>
> The Wanderer. The Canturbury Tales (with its care to let ALL CLASSES
> speak).
Eh? The Canterbury Tales were written for
"all classes"? Are you serious? Do you
know the literacy rates of the day? And
how do you think they got their hands on
a copy?
>> > Moast of the artists were middle-class.
>>
>> The term is anachronistic (I borrowed
>> it from the idiot Nilges).
>
> Let's see, because today you THINK you live in a classless society,
> and this is demonstrated to you on TeeVee by the utter vacuity of the
> ruling class, then the term can no longer be used even to refer to the
> class structures of the past? This makes no sense whatsoever.
The term first appears shortly before 1800
AFAIR. There has been an extended
debate in this NG on the matter. One of
the main criteria for its application since
has been the possession of literacy
(obviously not a sufficient condition, but
clearly a necessary one). The Stratman's
family were NOT "middle-class" by this
criterion, and by many others.
Only a fool thinks that he can readily
apply modern social categories to Early
Modern society.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:1177771757.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >> b) What great art was ever produced by the
>> >> middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
>>
>> > You might take a look at a city called Athens, Paul.
>>
>> You were there, and you know?
>
> No, I wasn't there. I'm hopelessly deluded do to historians telling
> me about plays written for festivals that were for the entire populace
> of Athens.
What evidence did they have?
In any case, they probably meant
"all the citizens" -- excluding all
the slaves, everyone who could
not read or had no education or
who worked with their hands.
Class exists. It has always existed
and Athens, like every other city,
had to have a very large proportion
of people who would have had no
interest in such things, since they
lacked the necessary education.
Those are the facts of life and
while Stratfordian fantasies about
the past may be attractive, they
are merely fantasies.
> Paul, you obviously won't budge, and you're too rigidnikal
> to accept the idea of multiple aims--which would cause a Michelangelo,
> for instance, to paint for money, for his religion, and for PEOPLE.
Sure -- long, long ago in a land called
Stratfordia, everyone was literate,
educated, and interested in great art
and all the good things of life. Then
something BAD happened (fill in
your own particular theory) and the
masses turned ignorant and stupid
and have remained so the present
day.
> And for the mere sake of making a satisfying art object. I believe
> also that there is archeological evidence, and documents with pictures
> of them from the time, that indicate theatres existed in Shakespeare's
> London, and all kinds of documentary evidence that people went to
> those theatres to watch plays, such as Shakespeare's Henry VIII.
Not being at home, I am not in a good
position to investigate that claim. But
now that you mention it, that story
reeks of the "made-up"". Is it yet
another forgery?
> Worse, you refuse to acknowledge that a statement cannot automatically
> be accepted as true just because the person who made it says it is
> true.
Eh? Surely you don't mean that?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> > I've never read [i]Piers Plowman[/i]
>> > but have heard tell it was for the lower orders more than anyone
>> > else. Lots of medieval poems, including ones of the first-order, were
>> > for people in general.
>>
>> Which were 'of the first order' ?
>
> The Wanderer. The Canturbury Tales (with its care to let ALL CLASSES
> speak).
Eh? The Canterbury Tales were written for
"all classes"? Are you serious? Do you
know the literacy rates of the day? And
how do you think they got their hands on
a copy?
>> > Moast of the artists were middle-class.
>>
>> The term is anachronistic (I borrowed
>> it from the idiot Nilges).
>
> Let's see, because today you THINK you live in a classless society,
> and this is demonstrated to you on TeeVee by the utter vacuity of the
> ruling class, then the term can no longer be used even to refer to the
> class structures of the past? This makes no sense whatsoever.
The term first appears shortly before 1800
Paul Crowley
>> > I've never read [i]Piers Plowman[/i]
>> > but have heard tell it was for the lower orders more than anyone
>> > else. Lots of medieval poems, including ones of the first-order, were
>> > for people in general.
>>
>> Which were 'of the first order' ?
>
> The Wanderer. The Canturbury Tales (with its care to let ALL CLASSES
> speak).
Eh? The Canterbury Tales were written for
"all classes"? Are you serious? Do you
know the literacy rates of the day? And
how do you think they got their hands on
a copy?
>> > Moast of the artists were middle-class.
>>
>> The term is anachronistic (I borrowed
>> it from the idiot Nilges).
>
> Let's see, because today you THINK you live in a classless society,
> and this is demonstrated to you on TeeVee by the utter vacuity of the
> ruling class, then the term can no longer be used even to refer to the
> class structures of the past? This makes no sense whatsoever.
The term first appears shortly before 1800
book...@yahoo.com
<skjhk...@sdfsdfsdfs.com> wrote:
><book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:k6n5331bpv96rcqoh...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:44:20 GMT, "Peter Groves"
>
>> As it happens, the point you try to make, that Spenser
>> was not an aristocrat, argues against Paul's idea that only
>> aristocrats functioned as artists for the middle class.
>
>I said no such thing. Aristocrats had the
>money. (Can we agree on THAT?). They
>paid for art, which was produced any way
>it came, and the artists, and artisans were
>often, indeed nearly always, non-aristocrats.
Sidney was an aristocrat. Can we agree on that?
>But patronage by RICH people was the
>way in which nearly all art was produced
>throughout the Renaissance, and for
>hundreds of years after.
>
>The one (imagined) great exception to
>that rule was Shakespeare.
Don't the dedications of VA and RL suggest Wriothesley was his patron?
>What a laugh!
>
>Strats are not even aware of the nature
>of the theory they propose. Nothing
>new there, of course. Can any Strat
>find his behind -- using both hands?
It's just that Oxfordians can't recognize what it means to be a
Renaissance Man and confuse being a patron with being an artist.
>
>Paul.
>
spinoza1111
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177774930.6...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > I've never read [i]Piers Plowman[/i]
> >> > but have heard tell it was for the lower orders more than anyone
> >> > else. Lots of medieval poems, including ones of the first-order, were
> >> > for people in general.
>
> >> Which were 'of the first order' ?
>
> > The Wanderer. The Canturbury Tales (with its care to let ALL CLASSES
> > speak).
>
> Eh? The Canterbury Tales were written for
> "all classes"? Are you serious? Do you
> know the literacy rates of the day? And
> how do you think they got their hands on
> a copy?
An illiterate man could have the MS read to him by a literate man, who
DID NOT HAVE TO COME FROM THE UPPER CLASSES. Quite the opposite:
literacy as in the case of ancient China was of GREATER interest to
the poor because it was the only way to escape poverty and to become
"the dominated half of the dominating class", the clerisy of the
middle ages, the humanists of the Renaissance, and the intellectual of
today.
>
> >> > Moast of the artists were middle-class.
>
> >> The term is anachronistic (I borrowed
> >> it from the idiot Nilges).
>
> > Let's see, because today you THINK you live in a classless society,
> > and this is demonstrated to you on TeeVee by the utter vacuity of the
> > ruling class, then the term can no longer be used even to refer to the
> > class structures of the past? This makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> The term first appears shortly before 1800
> AFAIR. There has been an extended
> debate in this NG on the matter. One of
> the main criteria for its application since
> has been the possession of literacy
> (obviously not a sufficient condition, but
> clearly a necessary one). The Stratman's
> family were NOT "middle-class" by this
> criterion, and by many others.
But Shakespeare was, because if you admit he was an actor, he had to
be able to read and memorize a part, and if you admit he was a
businessman, he had to read and write enough to cast accounts.
>
> Only a fool thinks that he can readily
> apply modern social categories to Early
> Modern society.
Only a fool fails to see that an aristocrat, as an aristocrat, has no
need, *qua* aristocrat to produce culture. You can confuse the issue
all you want with your lack of historical insight.
>
> Paul.
spinoza1111
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The possession of literacy is neither a necessary nor sufficient
condition for being middle class...although Shakespeare's father was
literate enough to manage his affairs, Shakespeare was literate enough
to write the canon, and had he not lost his son Hamnet, Hamnet would
have been sent to school to become literate. Literacy was expensive,
as it was in Imperial China, and for this reason it was a privilege
for eldest sons or the most obviously promising, usually male, members
of the family, and grammar school fees, very steep, were paid as an
investment.
Indeed, we can speculate that Anne Hathaway decided that a man who,
when he'd slaughter a sheep, would do it in high style and give a
speech, was better off beating his ass down to London and remitting
her cold hard cash with which to manage her affairs. Shakespeare first
sought skilled work as an actor, which would use the ability to read
and memorize texts (with mnemonic ability being foregrounded) he'd
obtained in school and then turned out to have a knack for filling in
gaps that Marlowe was probably too drunk to complete.
For if you'd read enough to imagine a world lit only by fire, you'd
see a world in which the simple lack of potable water meant that most
men were out of their skull most of the time with booze and lived on
the edge of schizophrenia, still hearing voices in the air which
Shakespeare, being a young fellow, was sober, and just well-educated
enough, to transcribe.
But, imagination is not your fortay.
Like H. L. Mencken, Shakespeare, we may speculate based on the
scholarly record, hung around the shop until he was put to work. The
fact that most people in this ng have never gotten a job in this way,
lacking the courage and heart, doesn't mean that this hasn't
historically been a way to get a job of work. The people on this ng
trusted a white skin and conformity to ensure themselves, no matter
what the content of their degree, jobs as bit pushers which they hate
and which they suck, haven't been prepared for these jobs, but that's
ok, since the jobs are so moronized they can't fuck up. This renders
the idea of parlaying a grammar school education into a career
(something my grandfather did) most strange, doesn't it?
I may speculate, but you may not, because you haven't read anything
worthwhile. I could prophesy, like Hotspur, but you may not.
Being middle class is a relationship to the means of production, and
over time, plenty of illiterate, semi-literate and aliterate men and
women have owned businesses and conducted their affairs without
learning to read and write.
>
> Only a fool thinks that he can readily
> apply modern social categories to Early
> Modern society.
Only an aliterate hasn't read enough to realize that the Black Death
had in England increased the monetary value of peasant labor, and that
the Wars of the Roses had so thinned the ranks of the great families
of the middle ages in England (for example at the battle of Towton,
the largest and most costly battle on English soil to date) that the
Tudors were able to appeal over the heads of the surviving great
families to the new middle class who were forming businesses in areas
including the theater which had been either nonexistent or Church
subsidized in the mediaeval era.
>
> Paul.
lackpurity
> <bookb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:k6n5331bpv96rcqoh...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:44:20 GMT, "Peter Groves"
> > As it happens, the point you try to make, that Spenser
> > was not an aristocrat, argues against Paul's idea that only
> > aristocrats functioned as artists for the middle class.
>
> I said no such thing. Aristocrats had the
> money. (Can we agree on THAT?). They
> paid for art, which was produced any way
> it came, and the artists, and artisans were
> often, indeed nearly always, non-aristocrats.
> But patronage by RICH people was the
> way in which nearly all art was produced
> throughout the Renaissance, and for
> hundreds of years after.
>
> The one (imagined) great exception to
> that rule was Shakespeare.
MM:
Shakespeare is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. Anti-
Strat Elizabeth makes an issue about him hoarding 80 bushels of corn
or malt. So, what was he? Rich? Poor? Can you Anti-Strats make up
your minds?
It appears that Countess Mary of Pembroke and her husband were great
contributors to the cause of the spiritual cult. I think they
financed Christopher Marlowe's endeavors, and Shakespeare inherited
all that. Given that fact, it would not be surprising if Shakespeare
had his donors, also. I think the same could be said about his
successor, Francis Bacon.
> What a laugh!
MM:
Read what I just wrote, and stop laughing. LOL
> Strats are not even aware of the nature
> of the theory they propose. Nothing
> new there, of course. Can any Strat
> find his behind -- using both hands?
>
> Paul.
MM:
Read what I wrote, then correct your statement. I'm a Strat.
Michael Martin
Paul Crowley
>> >> Which were 'of the first order' ?
>>
>> > The Wanderer. The Canturbury Tales (with its care to let ALL CLASSES
>> > speak).
>>
>> Eh? The Canterbury Tales were written for
>> "all classes"? Are you serious? Do you
>> know the literacy rates of the day? And
>> how do you think they got their hands on
>> a copy?
>
> An illiterate man could have the MS read to him by a literate man,
Except that it rarely happened. The
notion is absurd. The Tales were written
during the liberal rule of Richard II for the
court and the aristocracy. Manuscripts
were few and precious, and were not
read to illiterates of the lower classes.
> who
> DID NOT HAVE TO COME FROM THE UPPER CLASSES.
Most would have -- since someone paid
for their education.
> Quite the opposite:
> literacy as in the case of ancient China was of GREATER interest to
> the poor because it was the only way to escape poverty and to become
> "the dominated half of the dominating class", the clerisy of the
> middle ages, the humanists of the Renaissance
Simply false. Most of those who managed
to improve the class status of their offspring
(over those of their own parents) did so by
making money -- one way or the other.
The Stratman's tale, in this respect, is as
good a guide as any other.
>> > Let's see, because today you THINK you live in a classless society,
>> > and this is demonstrated to you on TeeVee by the utter vacuity of the
>> > ruling class, then the term can no longer be used even to refer to the
>> > class structures of the past? This makes no sense whatsoever.
>>
>> The term first appears shortly before 1800
>> AFAIR. There has been an extended
>> debate in this NG on the matter. One of
>> the main criteria for its application since
>> has been the possession of literacy
>> (obviously not a sufficient condition, but
>> clearly a necessary one). The Stratman's
>> family were NOT "middle-class" by this
>> criterion, and by many others.
>
> But Shakespeare was, because if you admit he was an actor,
He wasn't. He married at 18, and had
3 kids by the age of 21. Life in Stratford
provided no opportunities for aspiring
actors -- not that such an idea ever
entered his head.
> he had to
> be able to read and memorize a part, and if you admit he was a
> businessman, he had to read and write enough to cast accounts.
Nonsense. Businessmen then did
not need to be literate. They could
always hire someone for paper-work,
as they do now.
>> Only a fool thinks that he can readily
>> apply modern social categories to Early
>> Modern society.
>
> Only a fool fails to see that an aristocrat, as an aristocrat, has no
> need, *qua* aristocrat to produce culture.
Early modern courts placed a great
emphasis on literary ability -- and that
included the writing of poetry and
other works. Many nobles of the day
were fine writers and some were
excellent poets.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> >> The term is anachronistic (I borrowed
>> >> it from the idiotNilges).
>>
>> > Let's see, because today you THINK you live in a classless society,
>> > and this is demonstrated to you on TeeVee by the utter vacuity of the
>> > ruling class, then the term can no longer be used even to refer to the
>> > class structures of the past? This makes no sense whatsoever.
>>
>> The term first appears shortly before 1800
>> AFAIR. There has been an extended
>> debate in this NG on the matter. One of
>> the main criteria for its application since
>> has been the possession of literacy
>> (obviously not a sufficient condition, but
>> clearly a necessary one). The Stratman's
>> family were NOT "middle-class" by this
>> criterion, and by many others.
>
> The possession of literacy is neither a necessary nor sufficient
> condition for being middle class
Name (say) five well-know middle-
class people who were illiterate.
> . . . although Shakespeare's father was
> literate enough to manage his affairs,
Meaning that he was quite illiterate.
He always signed with a mark -- just
as did the great majority of people of
his status.
> Shakespeare was literate enough
> to write the canon, and had he not lost his son Hamnet, Hamnet would
> have been sent to school to become literate.
He would not have learned to be literate
at home -- since his mother, and every
other relative was illiterate. The Stratman
did not bother to see that his daughters
were taught to be literate, even if by
this time they were around 10 he had
great wealth (under the Strat scenario,
this was 'accumulated' over recent years
during a long period when the theatres
were closed on account of plague).
> Literacy was expensive,
> as it was in Imperial China, and for this reason it was a privilege
> for eldest sons
Wrong. The elder son nearly always
succeeded to the father's role -- whether
farmer, businessman, or craftsman.
Younger sons were taught skills and
trades, so that they could make a living
when they would have to leave the
locality.
> or the most obviously promising, usually male, members
> of the family, and grammar school fees, very steep, were paid as an
> investment.
What use is Latin (and all the other high-
faluting stuff Strats have to pretend was
taught in the local school -- to boys
between 7 and 13) . . when the boy is
going to work making gloves or such-
like?
> Indeed, we can speculate that Anne Hathaway decided that a man who,
> when he'd slaughter a sheep, would do it in high style and give a
> speech, was better off beating his ass down to London and remitting
> her cold hard cash with which to manage her affairs. Shakespeare first
> sought skilled work as an actor, which would use the ability to read
> and memorize texts (with mnemonic ability being foregrounded) he'd
> obtained in school and then turned out to have a knack for filling in
> gaps that Marlowe was probably too drunk to complete.
The usual utterly stupid Stratfordian
drivel.
> For if you'd read enough to imagine a world lit only by fire, you'd
> see a world in which the simple lack of potable water meant that most
> men were out of their skull most of the time with booze
What absurd fantasy is this? MOST
OF THE WORLD drinks water from
local wells, and that's mostly in the
tropics. There was never any shortage
of potable water in the Stratford-upon-
Avon locality.
> and lived on
> the edge of schizophrenia, still hearing voices in the air which
> Shakespeare, being a young fellow, was sober, and just well-educated
> enough, to transcribe.
Quite absurd -- but as Stratfordian
fantasies go -- as good as most.
> Being middle class is a relationship to the means of production, and
> over time, plenty of illiterate, semi-literate and aliterate men and
> women have owned businesses and conducted their affairs without
> learning to read and write.
Idiot --"being middle class" is a statement
about social origins. Alan Sugar (for example)
may be very rich, but he is still working-
class, because his parents were, he was
a working-class child, and stayed that way
while growing up. He has not changed, and
is proud of it.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> a) What great art was produced in the Renaissance
>> by the middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
>
> Most of it.
>
> Italian painting was created for the PUBLIC edification of the middle
> and lower classes in public spaces, notably churches.
Nuts. The great bulk was for private palaces
and private gardens. Those who paid for it
wanted it for their own enjoyment, and to
display to those whom they wanted to impress
-- which did not include the ignorant masses.
> The Sistine
> Chapel wasn't painted for Pope Julius private edifaction.
The hoi polloi were not allowed to troop
through the place. Few probably ever
saw the place.
> Writing a Petrarchian or Spenserian sonnet is NOT an easy task. Can
> you produce one? I thought not. It demanded training in detail of the
> sort which Shakespeare got in grammar school:
This grammar school consisted of one
inexperienced teacher, recently qualified
from Oxford,who rarely lasted more than
a year or so before he was replaced by
another. He had to teach all the ages
between 7 and 13. Many of the pupils'
parents would have been illiterate.
If he got the bulk able to read and write,
he'd have been doing well.
>> b) What great art was ever produced by the
>> middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
>>
>> The latter question has perhaps some answers
>> -- but the art is relatively minor, (e.g. Jane Austen,
>
> ROTFLMAO. Jane Austen and Dickens minor authors! HA HA HA!
The relevant word is 'relatively'.
Many believe that the novel can
never be great art.
>> Dickens); it is MUCH later, and it was never
>> addressed to the uncultured masses that are
>> (ludicrously) supposed to have formed Shake-
>> speare's audiences.
>
> Who do you suppose the groundlings were?
Mostly illiterates who enjoyed the
rougher end of the action -- the songs,
dancing, staged fights, the acrobats
and tumblers. If any found themselves
at one of the very rare performances of
a canonical play, they'd have walked out.
Paul.
spinoza1111
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177736610.1...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> a) What great art was produced in the Renaissance
> >> by the middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
>
> > Most of it.
>
> > Italian painting was created for the PUBLIC edification of the middle
> > and lower classes in public spaces, notably churches.
>
> Nuts. The great bulk was for private palaces
> and private gardens. Those who paid for it
Yo, Guido, I wouldn't put that painting in da garden it might get wet.
Whaddayou, stupid? Put it in da foyah.
> wanted it for their own enjoyment, and to
No. Get your brain offa TV. They wanted to make a display to people of
a variety of classes. Read Foucault.
> display to those whom they wanted to impress
> -- which did not include the ignorant masses.
Impressing and overawing the *canaille* was Job One.
>
> > The Sistine
> > Chapel wasn't painted for Pope Julius private edifaction.
>
> The hoi polloi were not allowed to troop
> through the place. Few probably ever
> saw the place.
OK,
"Cudgel thy brains no more about it, for your dull
ass will not mend his pace with beating; and, when
you are asked this question next, say 'a
grave-maker: 'the houses that he makes last till
doomsday. Go, get thee to Yaughan: fetch me a
stoup of liquor."
as First Clown says to Clownus Secundus. You're underinformed.
>
> > Writing a Petrarchian or Spenserian sonnet is NOT an easy task. Can
> > you produce one? I thought not. It demanded training in detail of the
> > sort which Shakespeare got in grammar school:
>
> This grammar school consisted of one
> inexperienced teacher, recently qualified
> from Oxford,who rarely lasted more than
> a year or so before he was replaced by
> another. He had to teach all the ages
> between 7 and 13. Many of the pupils'
> parents would have been illiterate.happ
> If he got the bulk able to read and write,
> he'd have been doing well.
This is the modern "educationist's" view: that "good teaching" is a
necessary and sufficient condition for good learning in more than a
tautologous sense. The fact is that Shakespeare (as Germaine Greer
pointed out in her book on Shakespeare) had a special capacity for
learning through suffering, and the very incompetence of the teacher
caused him to use his anger in a constructive fashion.
This possibility is that people here don't know how to use their anger
constructively, and for this reason cannot conceive of a Shakespeare
who parlayed an inferior education into a career and a fortune.
Watch "The Pursuit of Happyness" in which an African American guy
parlays what he was dealt into a successful career. I believe this is
what Shakespeare did, and also, what Beethoven was able to do.
Beethoven's own family, like Shakespeare's, were guttersnipes and his
father was alcoholic: they may also have been subject to racism since
it's possible that Beethoven had black ancestors courtesy of the Turks
of the 17th century and their "Ethiopian" musicians.
But Beethoven, in spite of a "talent" inferior to Mozart's beat into
him by INCOMPETENT music teachers including his alcoholic father, and
despite the onset of deafness in midlife, wrote the Ninth Symphony.
How on earth was he able to do dat?
Or oooooooo (cue Twilight Zone theme) maybe he DIDN'T because (1)
Beethoven wasn't an aristocrat, (2) he wasn't as facile as Mozart, (3)
he was deaf in later life and (4) his ancestors were from Africa.
Ooooooooo!
Prince Metternich wrote "Beethoven"!
David Windsor, quondam Edward VIII and then the rotting Duke, wrote
the novels attributed to Aldous Huxley, because dis Huxley guy didn't
know nuffin about the upper class!
The King of Spain, le Roi d'Espagne, wrote the script for Dodgeball!
Only patricians are Sensitive enuf to Create
We are dainty little people and we must self police
Domination of ourselves is our historical role.
How dare He ride into town mounted on an ass
His blood on us and on our children.
You must watch only movies approved by the self police
You may not make any mistakes, however small
Whaddayou stupid get us all in trouble
We are dainty little people and we must self police.
>
> >> b) What great art was ever produced by the
> >> middle-classes FOR the middle-classes?
>
> >> The latter question has perhaps some answers
> >> -- but the art is relatively minor, (e.g. Jane Austen,
>
> > ROTFLMAO. Jane Austen and Dickens minor authors! HA HA HA!
>
> The relevant word is 'relatively'.
> Many believe that the novel can
> never be great art.
Wilma and I wanna see some great art and drink some fine wine. When
people like you so much as use phrases such as "great art" I get sick
to my stomach and I want to spew in the corner.
>
> >> Dickens); it is MUCH later, and it was never
> >> addressed to the uncultured masses that are
> >> (ludicrously) supposed to have formed Shake-
> >> speare's audiences.
>
> > Who do you suppose the groundlings were?
>
> Mostly illiterates who enjoyed the
> rougher end of the action -- the songs,
> dancing, staged fights, the acrobats
> and tumblers. If any found themselves
> at one of the very rare performances of
> a canonical play, they'd have walked out.
We have no record of people walking out of Hamlet. And it strains
credulity even of the relatively ignorant to think that some guy'd pay
a groat to stand for four hours if all he wanted to see was a bear
being baited, a flash of leg, or a fight.
Shakespeare, until the late romances, excluded the danserie and the
masque from his dramas and laughed as I've said all the way to the
bank, because the common folk DON'T want the action interrupted by a
Masque of the Nations or a Dance of the Furies. This was a Baroque
invention and it tracked the gradual physical enclosure of theaters
and the realization by theater owners that providing a groundling
space was making too little money because the groundlings would tear
shit out of a fancier enclosed space as opposed to the Elizabethan
barn, where the groundlings could piss and defecate on the floor, the
floor being straw covered dirt.
Once in the 1610s the groundlings were excluded from the theater, the
upper class demand for masque and dancing prevailed. The groundlings
hived off to music halls and variety shows as the conditions of their
labor destroyed their capacity for attention span. By Vienna in
Mozart's time, the picture was I believe as it is shown in Amadeus,
with anal Court types attending mostly boring operas in royal
theaters, while the *canaille* get die Zauberflote, with enough
snakes, Queens of the Night, bird catchers and other divertissements
to keep the drunken or work-exhausted spectators happy.
Whether you like it or not, Shakespeare's theater has broad and world
wide appeal that cuts across class divides, because Shakespeare as a
middle class individual transgressed class boundaries that YOU cannot
transgress. The Gravedigger and Porter scenes in Hamlet and Macbeth
managed to be both sops for the groundlings and part of the plot,
which as written by a man of the rising bourgeoisie, mistrusted an
"aristocratic" viewpoint and showed most "aristocrats" to be
destructive of society.
>
> Paul.
Frank Lekens
> Many believe that the novel can
> never be great art.
Who does?
--
Frank
(xs4all dot nl is where it's really @)
www.xs4all.nl/~fmlekens/english.htm
Shakespeare in Dutch: www.xs4all.nl/~fmlekens/Q1609/
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > and lower classes in public spaces, notably churches.
>
> Nuts. The great bulk was for private palaces
> and private gardens. Those who paid for it
> wanted it for their own enjoyment, and to
> display to those whom they wanted to impress
> -- which did not include the ignorant masses.
So, Paul, is your knowledge of human nature such that you do not
believe a rich person could ever want to give pleasure in any way to a
member of a lower class than his, like showing him a pretty picture?
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
news:1177975445....@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Where did I say anything like that?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:1p8mplav...@coconino.nl...
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:48:42 +0100 Paul Crowley wrote:
>
>> Many believe that the novel can
>> never be great art.
>
> Who does?
Actually, you are probably right here.
I was thinking of earlier critics who
doubted whether the novel could ever
be art at all. All that has died down
over the last 50 or 100 years, and I doubt
if anyone now contests the standard
opinion. Of course, that means almost
nothing. The idea of contesting any
standard opinion does not occur the
sorts of people who hold academic posts
or who write 'literary criticism'. Sheep
have more intellectual independence.
Paul.